On Monday 22 August 2005 23.51, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 06:22:11PM +0000, W. Borgert wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:29:31PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > > really matters: can we (the Debian project) maintain the port? Thus
> > > I propose we only limit on the number of developers: are there
> > > people who are willing and competent to maintain kernel, boot loader,
> > > platform specific installer bits, libc and toolchain?
> >
> > That sounds sensible.
>
> It ignores the fact that every port is a drain on centralized project
> resources, whether it has users or not.
How so?
(I mean, how does my proposal to drop the 'has users' requirement in favor
of 'do we have developers' ignore the resource usage. I certainly do not
dispute that a port uses resources.)
And even if: would a userless port have the developers? For one thing, the
develoeprs are users themselves, and for another thing, even 'doorstop
architectures' where 90% of the users are seriously computer infected, only
a few of those are likely to be competent enough to maintain kernel and
toolchain. So I'd claim the (difficult to define) 'has users' requirement
is not so much different from a (IMHO easier to define) 'has developers'
requirement.
cheers
-- vbi
--
Beware of the FUD - know your enemies. This week
* The Alexis de Toqueville Institue *
http://fortytwo.ch/opinion/adti
Attachment:
pgplSdsnqyfVh.pgp
Description: PGP signature